Evolving Food Safety - ACS Publications - American Chemical Society

Chapter 33

Evolving Food Safety

Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on January 11, 2016 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date: December 31, 1991 | doi: 10.1021/bk-1991-0446.ch033

Fred R. Shank, Karen L. Carson, and Crystal A. Willis Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 200 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20204

Technological advances in the scientific world are expressing themselves in the development of new technologies and new products in the food industry which in turn are changing the concept of food safety. Consumer demands for specially formulated products to satisfy their desires for more healthful diets have created "new" food safety issues associated with the technologies used and the composition of the end products. These "new" food safety issues, however, must be examined against a backdrop of "traditional" food safety issues, such as microbiological hazards, chemical contaminants, and natural toxicants. Advances in science and technology are providing the tools with which to search for answers to food safety questions. Evolving technology confirms the reality that the food supply is not 100% safe while providing us the capability to develop control mechanisms to minimize potential hazards, whether they are inherent in the food or introduced at some stage of processing. Increased consumer concern about the safety of the food supply underscores the need for development and use of effective risk communication techniques to permit consumers to gain perspective on where in the food supplyriskslie. Food safety is an abstract concept at the very least. It is an evolving amalgam of sciences, of technological advances in those sciences and their use in food processing and packaging, of inherent attributes of foods, and of consumer perceptions of what food safety actually entails. The U.S. food supply is the safest in the world, but there are some aspects of the food supply that generate concern. The presence of chemical contaminants, natural toxicants, and microbiological hazards are a few of the basic issues that must be confronted in any discussion of evolving food safety. A realistic picture of food safety must first depict what might be termed "basic issues"—chemical contaminants, natural toxicants, and microThis chapter not subject to U.S. copyright Published 1991 American Chemical Society

In Pesticide Residues and Food Safety; Tweedy, B. G., et al.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1991.

298

PESTICIDE RESIDUES AND FOOD SAFETY


biological hazards—issues which, in all likelihood will be with us in one guise or another for years to come. The picture must also depict the influence of scientific and technological innovation on food production processes and on development of more proficient monitoring and surveillance techniques. Viewing the issues in the overall context of food safety as a multi-faceted concept permits perspective—that is, better understanding of the impact of individual issues on public health. Relaying information about the relative importance of food safety issues to the ultimate consumer—the non-scientist—then becomes the challenge. Microbiological Hazards The biggest potential health hazard in the U.S. food supply is still microbiological hazards (7). Some foodborne microorganisms may be the causative agent in diseases involving organ systems beyond the gastrointestinal tract (2), such as reactive arthritis and peri- and myocarditis. Even more frightening, microorganisms long thought to have no health threat to the general population may now pose a threat, particularly to vulnerable subpopulations such as pregnant women, infants, the elderly, and immunocompromised individuals (5). We are finding that "microorganisms long recognized as foodborne agents are demonstrating their adaptability to new foods and food processing techniques."^) Hence, the apparently "sudden" appearance of Listeria as a threat to public health. It is widely recognized that microorganisms readily adapt to changing environments. Chemical Contaminants Chemicals in food, whether chemical contaminants such as pesticides, heavy metals, and drug residues, or inherent compounds such as natural toxicants concern consumers. Because consumers express concern and because these are toxic substances, these issues deserve the attention of food professionals and those responsible for ensuring the safety of the food supply. Heavy Metals. The presence of certain metals, such as lead, in the food supply has always generated concern particularly about the health of young children. Lead levels in the food supply have been steadily declining, particularly with the phasing out of the lead soldered can (4, Young, F. E.; Statement before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Committee on Energy and Commerce. June 27, 1988). However, a recent report to Congress concluded that there is little or no margin of safety between levels of lead we now find in the blood of large segments of the population and levels associated with toxic risk (5). Children and developing fetuses are most in danger (5). Despite steady progress in reducing lead hazards, particularly from lead soldered cans, millions of Americans are still absorbing unhealthy amounts of lead from air, dust, water, food, and peeling paint found in older buildings (5).



33. SHANK ET AL.


299

Pesticide Residues. Pesticide residues continue to generate concern, although current information indicates that there is no scientific basis for concern at the levels currently found in the food supply. Pesticides used in the U.S. marketplace have been determined to have an acceptable level of toxicity when used appropriately. Nevertheless, the mere existence of a pesticide residue, whether at or below levels of concern, is sufficient to cause concern, particularly among consumers. Last year FDA analyzed 18,114 samples, 9628 or 57% of which were imported (6). No detectable residues were found in 61% of the samples and the overall violation rate was less than 4%. The majority of the violations were a result of residues of registered pesticides in commodities for which the pesticide was not registered. It is interesting to note that although the 18,114 samples represent a 25% increase in monitoring over 1987, the violation rate for both years was very similar. Preliminary data for 1989 show that about 20,000 food samples were analyzed for pesticide residues, 13,000 of which were imported foods. Since 1961 FDA has also conducted the Total Diet or market basket survey. The Total Diet Study is designed to estimate the actual intakes of selected pesticides in the diets of eight age and sex subpopulations. As in previous years, dietary intakes of pesticide residues are below World Health Organization's Acceptable Daily Intakes. For most pesticides, the intakes were less than 1% of the ADI. Naturally Occurring Toxicants. Natural toxicants in foods, whether inherent or induced, represent an area of food safety that will receive increased attention from food professionals in the next few years. These substances enter the food supply by diverse routes—inherent constituent, reactions between ingredients, induced during home-cooking or commercial processing, introduced through microbial growth, accidental or intentional. This diversity demands that we develop a clearer understanding of the relationships between compound concentration and detrimental effects on health, as well as how these compounds are formed, if we are to ensure that natural toxicants do not occur at levels that represent public health risks. Research indicates that some of the most mutagenic compounds known, three dinitropyrenes and heterocyclic amines such as 2-amino-3-methylimidazole [4,5-f] quinoline (IQ) are formed in the grilling, broiling, or frying of meat, fish, and other protein rich foods. Animal bioassays and in vitro studies are providing some insight into potential natural carcinogens and mutagens, such as those from cooking food. According to Dr. Bruce Ames, "the total amount of burned and burnt material eaten in a typical day is at least several hundred times more than that inhaled from severe air pollution" (7). So-called "natural pesticides" are apparently present in all plants and may make up 5-10% of a plant's dry weight (7). Only a small portion of these have been tested in animal bioassays, but among those tested some have shown carcinogenic activity (7, Scheuplein, R. J.; Elsevier Publishing, in press). To complicate things, levels of these compounds may increase



300

PESTICIDE RESIDUES A N D F O O D SAFETY

dramatically in plants damaged by insects or fungi. Ames notes that "psoralens, light-activated carcinogens in celery, increase 100-fold and, . . . may even cause an occupational disease in celery-pickers and in producecheckers at supermarkets" (7). These types of carcinogens cause particular concern because of dietary advice recommending increased consumption of fruits and vegetables and use of spices and condiments to replace fats and salt as flavoring ingredients in cooking. Anatoxins, potent carcinogens found in many grains, nuts, and their products (7), are mycotoxins that are not permitted in foods above very low levels (less than 20 ppb). Peanut butter, for instance, contains 2 ppb of anatoxin, on the average (7) and a metabolite of aflatoxin, less potent but still carcinogenic, shows up in milk from cows eating moldy grain. Since climactic conditions play a critical role in the occurrence of the toxin and current technology to "deactivate" or remove the toxin is not available, FDA monitors the level of aflatoxins in the food supply to determine the need, if any, for regulatory control programs. Based on the available information, ingestion of aflatoxin at these low levels, less than 20 ppb, presents only a negligible risk to consumers. Nutrients. Even "normal" constituents of foods—fats, cholesterol, sodium—raise questions about potential adverse effects on human health. While all of these constituents are essential for health, there is growing body of evidence linking them with the development of chronic diseases such as heart disease and certain cancers. Evidence is growing, for instance, to indicate that the types of fat in the dietary choices consumers make are often more detrimental to health (increasing the risk of certain cancers) than the selectively lowrisksof a food or color additive. Micronutrients—vitamins and minerals—are often thought to have only a positive impact on human health. This attitude often leads to recommendations for consumption at levels significantly above those needed to maintain health. Compounds in the vitamin A family—vitamin A, beta-carotene, and synthetic retinoids—are promising chemopreventive agents (8). If research confirms anticarcinogenic activity, however, it is reasonable to assume that these substances will be consumed at levels far above those necessary to maintain health. The difference between therapeutic and toxic doses of compounds with vitamin A activity is very small (9,10). One confirmed death related to over-supplementation of vitamin A for the purpose of chemoprevention has been reported (11). There is also evidence of reproductive toxicity of vitamin A in pregnant women supplementing with therapeutic doses. Selenium, another example of an essential nutrient which is toxic when consumed in excess, has a very narrow range of safe intake. The 1989 Recommended Dietary Allowances include a recommended dietary intake of selenium for adults at 55-70 micrograms per day. At intakes of 1 milligram, however, selenium is toxic (9). While there is evidence that selenium intake, like vitamin A, has potential in the prevention of cancer, our understanding of the interrelationships with other nutrients and resultant toxicity is too sketchy to recommend its use as an anticarcinogen (12).



33.

SHANK ET A L


301

Consumers are concerned about their health, they are more cognizant about the relationships between diet and health, and they are modifying their dietary choices in the quest for better health. Sufficient concern about the impact of dietary components on health has been generated that USDA/HHS, the National Research Council (13), the Surgeon General (8), and other public health professional groups have advised Americans to modify fat—particularly saturated fat—cholesterol, and sodium contents of their diets. Technological advances that promise to improve diets, through development of products such as "designer foods" formulated specially to meet a specific health need, find a ready market (14) "Designer foods" aren't a new concept. Manufacturers have been adding or removing ingredients imbued with special health connotations for years; replacing saturated fat with unsaturated lat, using a fat replacer in place of fat, using artificial sweeteners in place of sugars and potassium chloride in place of sodium chloride. "Designer foods" are taking a more esoteric turn, however, with research into supplementation with naturally occurring compounds, such as phytochemicals, shown to have some specific activity in modulating development of certain diseases (15). As more and more research shows the potential for use of naturally occurring substances to combat the onset of disease conditions, the potential for abusing the use of those substances through over-supplementation or supplementation in inappropriate foods increases. Major research programs are underway to examine the relationships between components of foods and disease conditions with the ultimate goal of manipulating diets to improve health. The National Cancer Institute program on "designer foods", for example, is a $50 million program to test the anticarcinogenic properties of phytochemicals. Substances being tested include garlic, flax seed, citrus fruit, and licorice root. Drug Residues. Drug residues in milk have recently drawn the attention of both industry and consumers in this country and Europe. The presence of drugs, such as antibiotics, in milk is a recurring concern as the dairy industry in cooperation with regulatory agencies works to monitor the milk supply and to educate producers about the proper use of animal drugs. Another substance, which some feel falls under the heading "drug residues", genetically-produced bovine somatotropin (BST), is at the top of consumers' list of concerns currently. Genetically-produced versions of this hormone have been shown to be identical in biological activity to naturally occurring BST and occur in milk within the upper limits of naturally occurring BST, which has always been present in milk (16). Milk from BSTtreated cows is safe for two other reasons. First, BST is a protein—not a steroid hormone—and as such is broken down and thus inactivated in the normal digestive processes. Second, the molecular structure of BST is different from that of human somatotropin, rendering it inactive even if injected into humans.



302


Biotechnology New technologies, biotechnology, for example, have the potential for delivering many new products, as well as modifications of old favorites, to the marketplace. An offshoot of their use, however, will be a different type of food safety issues. FDA has a few products of biotechnology under review, but there arc many more under development throughout the food industry. Take, for instance, the tomato. The twentieth century tomato will never again be like the 19th century tomato. Tomatoes are being engineered for self-protection. Genetic material for a toxin from Bacillus thuringiensis is being incorporated into the genetic makeup of tomatoes for its pesticidal effects; the tomato produces the toxin and is protected from insects. Tomatoes are being engineered for resistance to destructive viruses; the plants produce a protein which interferes with virus growth and reproduction. From providing its own pesticide protection, it is only a short step to engineering in protection from selected herbicides. Tomatoes are being engineered to resist glyphosphate (trade name Roundup), permitting the farmer to spray the whole field without damaging the tomatoes. While these and similar developments bring benefits to producers and consumers alike, there are side issues that bear examination. Aside from the basic issue of the safety of any residual microorganisms, application of biotechnological processes could potentially cause a manipulation of the product composition in such a way that detrimental characteristics may be accentuated. For example, the natural concentration of a toxic compound may be below the level of concern, but with use of biotechnological techniques, the concentration of the compound may increase sufficiently to cause concern. Nevertheless, there is enormous potential for development of novel ingredients and foods to meet future consumer demands for convenient, healthful foods. This, then, provides a backdrop against which to consider the direction of future food safety efforts. Advances in science and technology, including toxicology, provide us with almost daily improvements in analytical sciences, as well as providing us with the tools to exercise those sciences in answering questions about food safety and developing new techniques to enhance safety. The development of new diet-based health information, increased use of new processing and packaging technologies, increased use of biotechnology to develop novel foods and ingredients—all of these factors will have a profound effect on how the concept of food safety evolves over the next several years. The U.S. food supply is the safest in the world, but it is not and cannot be a zero-risk food supply. Evolving technology is a two-edged sword—it confirms the reality that the food supply is not 100% safe while providing us the capability to develop control mechanisms to minimize potential hazards, whether they are inherent in the food or introduced at some stage of processing—and to continue to ensure the safety and wholesomeness of the food supply.


33.

SHANK ET A L


303

Evolving Science


The last few years have seen rapid changes and technological advances in science and technology. As a result, there are almost daily improvements in the analytical sciences and toxicology. Evolving technology is providing the tools needed to exercise those sciences in the search for answers to food safety questions. Toxicologists are expanding their knowledge and finding answers, or at least clues, to many food safety questions. The chemists are quantitating substances at ever decreasing levels. Pesticide Monitoring While FDA's data show that the food supply is safe regarding pesticide residues, there is growing public concern that the opposite is the case. FDA's current practices and programs cannot produce sufficient data to document, for all pesticides, commodities, and geographic areas, that the food supply is in compliance with current regulations. The question is how to effectively deal with this dilemma? Cooperative efforts between government agencies, academia, and industry can greatly expand and enhance the monitoring and surveillance of pesticide residues, contaminants, and other substances of public health importance. The resultant information will provide a more accurate view of the incidence and quantities these substances in the food supply, as well as improve the accuracy of risk assessments. Hazard Analysis of Critical Control Points (HACCP) One of the most powerful tools available for monitoring pesticide residues—as well as other chemical contaminants—is the use of Hazard Analysis of Critical Control Points (HACCP) to monitor the safety and quality of food products from the field to the store. The essence of HACCP, the identification and subsequent monitoring of critical points in the handling and processing of a product, is preventive and thus, cost effective for the manufacturer while assuring the consumer a safe, high quality product. The adaptability of HACCP principles gives this concept tremendous potential for use in every aspect of the food manufacturing and retail industries. Of particular importance to the entry of new technologies, to management of the negligibleriskspresented by foods, and to the further improvement of public health, is the development of techniques and strategies for allowing consumers to become more scientifically savvy. Right now there is a "backlash" of activity in Congress, directed to regulatory agencies, precipitated by consumer perception of risks in the food supply. Consumers have a right to be concerned about risks, but the conflicting information bombarding them from all sides is more confusing than helpful.


304



Risk Communication Completely eliminating pesticide residues, microbiological hazards, or naturally occurring toxicants is not a viable alternative. These are not realistic goals in maintaining the safety of the food supply. Development and use of techniques to eliminate or reduce to the lowest levels of those potential hazards which can be eliminated or reduced is realistic. This situation demands that appropriate steps be taken to educate the public that the food supply is not zero-risk. There is no alternative. Scientists recognize that risks exist, but that, in perspective, some risks far outweigh others in their food safety implications. These risks are where attention should be focussed. The task lying immediately ahead is communicating this to consumers, providing them with the tools to put the concepts of risk and a safe food supply into perspective. How can public health officials and regulatory agencies most effectively communicate both on a long-term basis and during shorter-term crises? How can information consumers need in order to put relativerisksin a reasonable perspective be provided? Risk communication makes the link between scientific decisions and the consumer. The interrelated issues of risk, public policy, and risk communication are of paramount importance to educating the public about their food supply. How risk information is communicated influences public policy—more often than not, the method of delivering information takes policy out of the scientific arena and places it in the emotionally charged public arena. Last Spring's Alar episode is a dramatic example of the complex interactions among the various actors—consumers, industry, media, and government—and the role risk communication plays in those interactions during a crisis. Communication Model: As a general rule, all risk messages, consist of four components: source, message, channel, and receiver. All components contribute to the quality of the communication. The source may determine the credibility of the message, the message is evaluated on the basis of its substance and relevance to the receiver, the channel used to transmit the message—for example, television or a written report—affects the degree to which the receiver understands the message, and the receiver filters the message through his personal biases and knowledge. The Alar crisis is a perfect example of how this communication model works. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC, the source)—a consumer advocacy group)—prepared a report about residues of Alar on applies (the message) and provided it to the popular CBS news show, 60 Minutes (the channel); there it was widely viewed by the public (the receivers). The communication was extraordinarily effective: The risk from Alar was described as particularly dangerous for a vulnerable population (children), as involuntary, and as unnecessary—all factors that have been known to increase the public's "outrage" about a risk. Responses by government agencies were much less effective. Agency representatives



33. SHANK ET A L


305

presented quantitative estimates of the risk from Alar at Congressional hearings, and relied on "scientific judgement" to conclude that Alar did not present a clear and present danger to the public. This response was judged to be ineffective by both the media and the public. It is not uncommon for more attention to be paid to the message and the channel with less attention given to the nuances lent to the message by the source and the receiver. Scientists concentrate more on the scientific quality of the message and the reputation of the channel chosen to deliver the message, not realizing that, given the choice, consumers may believe competing, but less scientifically sound, sources. Consumer Perspective: Today consumers are keenly aware that technological developments are affecting the food supply and while some are acceptable, such as anything having to do with microwave, others are not. In hindsight, perhaps keeping consumers informed of technological changes in the food supply—how desirable attributes were achieved and undesirable characteristics eliminated, as well as the socioeconomic consequences of the changes—may have provided consumers with the experience and background to reasonably judge and choose risks in today's food supply. Perhaps in the future such an approach will increase FDA's effectiveness by positioning it as an accurate and reliable source of information about risks in the food supply and providing consumers with the tools to put risk into perspective. William Ruckleshaus (27) points out that, right or wrong, the responsibility for decision-making involving risk issues in the United States must be shared with the American people. A 1987 publication of the Conservation Foundation, Risk Communication: Proceedings of the National Conference on Risk Communication (18), identified two elements that must be present for participatory decision-making about risk to work. First, consumers must have access to the decision maker; this is usually guaranteed by statutes that permit citizens to testify at hearings, submit written testimony, and have access to documents that underlie decisions about risks. The second element, and one that must be present before access can be meaningful, is that there must be sufficient information in the hands of citizens before they become truly effective participants. Scientists have been fooling with Mother Nature for a long time; breeding cows to increase milk production, producing plant hybrids with desirable characteristics such as insect resistance, breeding lower fat animals for food. In the past, technological, but unobservable, changes were regarded as the natural progression of scientific development aimed at improving the quality of life. Generally, consumers have not been informed about these scientific manipulations, except indirectly. For example, ads for the "other white meat—pork" tout the lower fat content but certainly don't explain how it was achieved. Be that as it may, we are now faced with a population of consumers that do not trust the scientific/government community and no longer accept, at face value, the safety of their foods. In its recent publication,




306

Improving Risk Communication (19), National Research Council recommendations for improving risk communication tend to center about two themes. First, communication efforts should be systematically oriented toward specific audiences. Second, credibility hinges on openness about current knowledge, and limitations of that knowledge, concerned with a risk, as well as any disagreement that exists among experts, or others, about the risk. Efforts to identify the audience to whom the risk message is directed would help federal agencies understand the biases and knowledge-base of the receivers. Is the audience the entire population of the United States or is it a much smaller group conversant with changes in the scientific and medical worlds? Designing a message which appeals to and communicates with the larger, less scientifically savvy, more diverse group presents a challenge. Putting relative risks into perspective, from the consumer's viewpoint, often engenders a dilemma for the communicator because single foods inherently contain both risks and benefits. Meat is cooked to reduce the microbiological risk, but in the process, carcinogens may be formed. Cooking food, with its risks and benefits, is important to the protection of public health. Application of new technologies to food production and processing offers the potential for enhancing not only beneficial attributes, but increasing the levels of harmful constituents as well. Biotechnology, for example, offers the means of creating "designer" foods as well as the ingredients to turn traditional foods into "designer" foods. A dilemma arises, however, when a genetic manipulation enhances a beneficial characteristic, such as the level of an anticarcinogenic phytochemical, but also increases levels of naturally occurring toxicants. The question is how to communicate these pluses and minuses—the very real risks accompanying desired benefits—to consumers. Legislative constraints continue to focus attention on pesticide residues and food additives; traditionally recognized food safety concerns. Conclusion In considering the issues briefly sketched out—heavy metals such as lead, added substances such as pesticide residues, "naturally occurring" toxic substances such as aflatoxins, harmful dietary practices such as fat consumption, products of science such as BST, the pesticidal tomato and risk communication, there is the underlying thought: "What will we do when—not if—the next 'Alar' episode occurs?" Consumer perceptions of hazards are largely a function of their knowledge and understanding of the hazard and visceral reactions. Effective techniques for communicatingrisksin the food supply in a way that consumers can understand and use in making a reasonable assessment of the potential risk is essential to stemming the effect of highly publicized, emotionally charged and sometimes less than factual reports of dangers. Effective risk communication techniques or programs are needed to provide consumers with the information they need to put food risks into perspective.


33.

SHANK ET A L


307


Literature Cited

1. Bennett, J. V.; Holmberg, S. D.; Rogers, M . F.; Solomon, S. L. In Closing the Gap The Burden of Unnecessary Illness; Ambler, R. W.; Dull, H. B., Eds. Oxford University Press: New York, 1987; p 102-114. 2. Archer, D. L. 1988. The true impact of foodborne infections. Food Techn. 1987, 42, 53-58. 3. Archer, D. L.; Young, F. E. Clin. Micro. Rev. 1988, 1, 377-398. 4. "Lead in Food; Advanced notice of proposed rulemaking; request for data", Food and Drug Administration, 1979, August 31, 1979 Federal Register: 44 FR 51233. 5. "The Nature and Extent of Lead Poisoning in Children in the United States; A Report to Congress", Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, HHS/PHS, Atlanta, GA, 1988. 6. Food and Drug Administration Pesticide Program Residues in Foods— 1988. Food and Drug Administration, Washington, DC, 1989. 7. Ames, Β. N.; Magaw, R.; Gold, L. S. Science 1987, 236, 271-280. 8. The Surgeon General's Report on Nutrition and Health, U.S. Depart ment of Health and Human Services, 1988. 9. Recommended Dietary Allowances, National Academy of Sciences, 1989, 10th ed. 10. Hayes, K. C. In Impact of Toxicology on Food Processing; J. C. Ayres; Kirschman, J. C., Eds.; AVI Publishing Co.: Westport, CT, 1981; p 254. 11. Schiller, G. J.; Goldstein, L. Am. J. Med. 1988, 84, 372-373. 12. Combs, G. F.; Combs, S. B. The Role of Selenium in Nutrition; Academic Press, Inc.: New York, 1986; p 443-453. 13. Diet and Health Implications for Reducing Chronic Disease Risk, National Academy of Sciences, 1989. 14. Designing Foods. Animal Product Options in the Market Place, National Academy Press, 1988. 15. "Inhibitors of Carcinogenesis"; In Diet, Nutrition, and Cancer, National Academy of Sciences, 1982. 16. "FDA Reviewing BST for Cows, Safety Data being Published", Talk Paper T89-50; Food and Drug Administration, August 4, 1989. 17. Ruckelshaus, W. D. In Risk Communication. Proceedings of the National Conference on Risk Communication, January 29-31, 1986, Davis, J. C.; Covello, V. T.; Allen, F. W., Eds.; The Conservation Foundation: Washington, DC, 1987; p 3-11. 18. Davis, J. C.; Covello, V. T.; Allen, F. W., Eds. Risk Communication. Proceedings of the National Conference on Risk Communication, Januar 29-31, 1986. The Conservation Foundation. Washington, DC, 1987. 19. Improving Risk Communication, National Academy of Sciences, 1989. RECEIVED August 29, 1990


Evolving Food Safety - ACS Publications - American Chemical Society

Recommend Documents